JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.040352/59/G.15/G.151/2014-1 dated 23.05.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to revise the seniority of the petitioner and place him in the appropriate place in the seniority list in Memo No.770/E3/1/89-2 dated 02.09.1989 in the light of the recommendation of the Chief Audit Committee dated 23.04.2010 and by promoting the petitioner as Superintending Engineer/ Mechanical and Chief Engineer/ Mechanical with monetary benefits on par with his Junior Thiru.T.Sankarapandian.) (1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to an order of the 2nd respondent, Chief Engineer [Personnel], Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Chennai, dated 23.05.2015 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to revise the seniority of the petitioner and to place him in the appropriate place in the seniority list in Memo No.770/E3/1/89-2 dated 02.09.1989 in the light of the recommendation of the Chief Audit Committee dated 23.04.2010 and by promoting the petitioner as Superintending Engineer/ Mechanical and Chief Engineer/ Mechanical with monetary benefits on par with his Junior Thiru.T.Sankarapandian. (2) Even before proceeding to examine the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is to be noted that the junior of the petitioner namely, Thiru.T.Sankarapandian, has not been made as a party to the writ petition. (3) The petitioner had been appointed through Employment Exchange as Switch Board Operator in the respondent Electricity Board. He then passed his AMIE examinations in the year 1984 and was appointed as Assistant Engineer/Mechanical through internal selection by a draft panel list of the Board in August 1989 and the seniority list in which the petitioner was placed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1985 is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner has serious grievances over his placement in which he had been placed as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, however, it must also be noted that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 23.05.1994 and as Executive Engineer on 27.4.2012 and as Superintending Engineer/Mechanical on 17.9.2014 and at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was so working as Superintending Engineer/Mechanical. Subsequently, however, it must also be noted that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 23.05.1994 and as Executive Engineer on 27.4.2012 and as Superintending Engineer/Mechanical on 17.9.2014 and at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was so working as Superintending Engineer/Mechanical. There are no records to show that the petitioner''s promotion was to his disadvantage and that juniors had been promoted ahead of him as Assistant Engineers or as Executive Engineers or as Superintending Engineers. Documents to that effect, that the petitioner had raised a protest at that particular stage about the promotion being denied or rather, delayed and that the juniors had been promoted ahead of him, had not been the bone of contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner and arguments were also not advanced on that particular ground. (4) The petitioner however, claims that when he was initially posted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1985 through internal selection consequent to passing of the AMIE Examinations in the year 1984, his seniority had been wrongly fixed. In this connection, reference is made to the manner in which the promotion should be given as between direct recruits and those selected through internal selection. The ratio is 1:1. The first place should go to those who had been selected through internal selection and the second place to those who had been selected through direct recruitment. During the course of arguments, a comparison has been made with one another Assistant Engineer by name A.Velmurugan, who had given a representation on 12.03.2007 and taking note of the fact that he had been appointed as direct recruit to the post of Assistant Engineer/Mechanical, that particular representation was considered. It is also to be noted that the seniority list had been circulated and the petitioner does not deny that he was not aware of the seniority list at the time when it was so circulated way back in the year 1985. There has been no protest raised by the petitioner at that particular point of time or when the next promotional avenue came up for further promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer on 23.05.1994. (5) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed very strong reliance on the amendment which had been brought in by the Board Proceedings in BP.MS.[FB] No.3, Administrative Branch dated 18.01.1986. (5) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed very strong reliance on the amendment which had been brought in by the Board Proceedings in BP.MS.[FB] No.3, Administrative Branch dated 18.01.1986. By the said Board Proceedings wherein the ratio 1:1 had been fixed between the internal selection and direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer / Electrical, Mechanical and Civil, the earlier Regulation 1997 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations, had been re-examined and thereafter, the Board had directed that appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer/Electrical, Mechanical and Civil, by internal selection and by direct recruitment, shall be in the ratio of 1:1. It had been stated that the cyclic order should be first one should follow the cycle, internal selection and then direct recruitment. It had also been stated that necessary amendments to the Service Regulations should be issued. Accordingly, the said amendment had also been issued and this had also been brought in as Regulation/Rule for such promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, vis-a-viz., direct recruits to the post of Assistant Engineers. As stated, this was in the year 1985. The first inclination when the petitioner had raised a protest against the said seniority list as prepared, was on 22.09.2008. On that particular date, the petitioner had been subsequent promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. There is no grievance raised that his promotion had been directly affected by the incorrect placement of his seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer. This particular representation given by the petitioner on 22.09.2008 was replied by the Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, by a communication dated 24.11.2008 in Memo No.099360/G.15/G.151/2008-1. The said communication issued by the Chief Engineer is as follows:- ''''With reference to the above, Thiru B.Sureshkumar, Assistant Executive Engineer/Mechanical/Kodayar Power House / Generation Circle, Tirunelveli, is informed that his request for revising his seniority and place his name above the name of Thiru.T.Sankarapandian, [now E.E./Mechanical/Kadamparai] who has joined in the Board''s service only on 27.11.1985 is not feasibile of compliance. [BY ORDER OF THE CHAIRMAN] K.SELVARAJU [CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL]'''' (6) The petitioner had then given a further representation after that particular rejection of his earlier representation. The second representation given by him was on 10.06.2009. Much reliance is placed on the internal proceedings of the Board among three separate officials wherein the second representation given by the petitioner had been discussed. [BY ORDER OF THE CHAIRMAN] K.SELVARAJU [CHIEF ENGINEER/PERSONNEL]'''' (6) The petitioner had then given a further representation after that particular rejection of his earlier representation. The second representation given by him was on 10.06.2009. Much reliance is placed on the internal proceedings of the Board among three separate officials wherein the second representation given by the petitioner had been discussed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed very strong reliance on the following notings:- ''''33. It is noticed that no uniform procedure has been followed by the Administrative Branch in preparation of seniority list for Assistant Engineer during the year 1985. The Assistant Engineer/Mechanical seniority list have been prepared based on the guidelines issued with reference to B.P.No.3 dated 18.01.1986. Whereas the seniority list of Assistant Engineer/Electrical prepared based on the prevailing guidelines available during 1985 [i.e.] ''''determined by the rank obtained by the employee in the list of approved candidates drawn up''''. For adopting two different procedure in the Assistant Engineer seniority for those who have joined during 1985 the Administrative Branch has not offered any justification in the note file. 34. In this connection the Deputy Secretary/Administration has clarified in this Letter No.33788/A.22A/A.223/2009-2 dated 01.06.2009 that B.P.Ms.[FB] No.3 [Admn.Br.] dated 18.01.1986 came into force with effect from 18.01.1986 as it is an executive order. 35. In this same issue the legal cell has opined on page [11] and [12] that the seniority has to be fixed only based on the existing orders in force during the year 1985 and recommended for considering the revision of seniority if mistakenly fixed by Board. 36. Based on the above facts it is recommended that the revision of seniority in respect of Thiru B.Sureshkumar, Assistant Engineer/Mechanical may be considered. Sd/--- Sd/--- Sd/--- A.A.O/F.3 D.C.I.A.O C.I.A.O'''' (7) It is therefore, insisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment has not been properly appreciated and no uniform procedure had been followed by the Administrative Branch in preparation of the seniority list for Assistant Engineers during the year 1985. It had been stated that it had been prepared on the guidelines issued with reference to the Board Proceedings No.3 dated 18.01.1986, whereas, it had been stated that the seniority list of Assistant Engineer / Electrical has to be prepared on the basis of the prevailing guidelines available during 1985. It had been stated that it had been prepared on the guidelines issued with reference to the Board Proceedings No.3 dated 18.01.1986, whereas, it had been stated that the seniority list of Assistant Engineer / Electrical has to be prepared on the basis of the prevailing guidelines available during 1985. It is thus seen that a distinction was sought to be made as between Assistant Engineer/Mechanical and Assistant Engineer/Electrical and Assistant Engineer/Civil, in the preparation of seniority list, though, right through the stand of the respondents is that all Assistant Engineers whether they are in electrical line or in the mechanical line or in the civil line, were to be treated uniformly. In the proceedings above, particularly, in paragraph No.33 extracted above, a noting had been stated that there is a difference in the approach by the Administrative section while determining seniority between Assistant Engineer/Mechanical and Assistant Engineer/Electrical and Assistant Engineer/Civil. The said noting had not been put into effect. It runs contrary to the earlier stand of the respondents that all the three categories should be treated equally and there cannot be a distinction among the three. Finally, in the noting above, it had been stated that the seniority with respect to the petitioner who was working in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer/Mechanical, may be considered. This cannot be taken as a binding recommendation or a binding order, that it should be definitely considered and that the seniority should be revised accordingly. If it is to be done so, then the entire seniority list will have to be revised. A fresh seniority list will have to be issued. Remarks would have to be called for from everybody who will be affected or whose seniority would be re-adjusted. (8) The petitioner has sent a further representation on 23.05.2011 once again seeking that his seniority may be revised by keeping the Assistant Engineer/Mechanical appointed through internal selection during August 1985 as a separate list. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is to distinguish between Assistant Engineer/Mechanical, Assistant Engineer/Electrical and Assistant Engineer/Civil. There has been no such distinction in the Regulations produced before this Court. All the three Assistant Engineers have been placed in the same category and there cannot be an internal division among Assistant Engineer/Electrical, Mechanical and Civil. (9) The petitioner seeks that particular distinction to be drawn which is not feasible. There has been no such distinction in the Regulations produced before this Court. All the three Assistant Engineers have been placed in the same category and there cannot be an internal division among Assistant Engineer/Electrical, Mechanical and Civil. (9) The petitioner seeks that particular distinction to be drawn which is not feasible. There has been a further proceedings on 16.09.2014, wherein, a representation of C.Veeramani who was the Executive Engineer/Mechanical, had been examined. It had been only ordered that the option format have to be once again submitted by the said C.Veeramani, Executive Engineer/Mechanical. But, however, the petitioner does not seek equivalence with C.Veeramani. The relief sought, it is only with T.Sankarapandian, who has not been made as a party to the writ petition. There is a further document which is enclosed dated 16.09.2014, wherein, the petitioner was proposed to be promoted as Superintending Engineer/Mechanical. Again, there is no grievance raised that the petitioner had been put to disadvantage by this particular promotion owing to not putting him in the correct position in seniority originally as the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner had accepted the promotions, had reaped the benefits thereof and after much time, had come before this Court claiming that the seniority in the 1985 list should be revised. (10) The learned counsel for the petitioner took umbrage at the Impugned Order and stated that no sufficient reasons had been given. But the only reason that had been given was that he had already been informed by the earlier communication dated 24.11.2008 that the seniority list dated 01.02.1985 was in order. The petitioner had again given a representation of the same issue. That representation was again considered. There was an internal notes prepared and then, the matter had been just kept at that and the further communication had been received which is impugned, that it is not feasible of being addressed. This was the communication addressed earlier also. Therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner on the internal communications will not take him anywhere. (11) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew notice of this Court to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 1976 [4] SCC 853 [Sualal Yadhav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others] relating to delay in taking up a cause relating to service. Therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner on the internal communications will not take him anywhere. (11) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew notice of this Court to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 1976 [4] SCC 853 [Sualal Yadhav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others] relating to delay in taking up a cause relating to service. In that particular case, the Sub Inspector of Police who was the appellant, had been dismissed from service after necessary enquiry had been conducted. The appellant / Sub Inspector of Police had appealed to the appropriate authority which was also dismissed and then a review was filed and the review was entertained by the Governor and he had passed an order stating that the matter was not fit for review. That was questioned before the High Court. The High Court held that the challenge before the High Court was hit by considerable delay and therefore, dismissed the petition filed before the High Court on the ground of delay. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had however, stated that the issue of delay should not be put against the appellant. But the Hon''ble Supreme Court had made a very significant statement in the said judgment. It is as follows:- ''''2.......Since the Governor had not dismissed the review application on the ground of delay and having entertained the same held it to be a case not fit for review, we take the view that the Governor dismissed the review application on merits.....'''' (12) It had been very clearly stated that since the Governor therein had not dismissed the review on the ground of delay and had entertained it, it should have been taken that the Governor had dismissed the review application on merits. This statement made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is directly applicable to the case on hand that even the first communication sent by the respondents herein wherein they had stated that the consideration of the request of the petitioner is not feasible having entertained it has to be considered by the Court as having been rejected on merits. That has been reiterated in the Impugned Order. They have not come up with any fresh reason. But, have reiterated the earlier communication sent by them that the request for seniority or refixation of seniority cannot be considered as it is not feasible. That has been reiterated in the Impugned Order. They have not come up with any fresh reason. But, have reiterated the earlier communication sent by them that the request for seniority or refixation of seniority cannot be considered as it is not feasible. (13) The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 1978 [1] SCC 405 [Mohinder Singh Gill and Others V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Another], which was referred to in a Division Bench decision of this Court in WA.No.308/2022 dated 22.02.2022 for the proposition that parties cannot improve the case which had not been the part of the Impugned Order. There has been no improvement in the counter affidavit filed here. The counter affidavit only states that the seniority had been already determined, cannot be re-examined by the respondents and that is the only stand which they had taken. (14) In the counter affidavit, the portion probably which the learned counsel claims is the extension of the Impugned Order, would be paragraph No.11 and let me extract the same in entirety:- ''''11. I respectfully submit that even thought the Chief Internal Audit Officer/Audit Branch on 23.04.2010 has recommended the revision of seniority in respect of Thiru.B.Sureshkumar, the then CMD/TANGEDCO has discussed with the Chief Internal Audit Officer on 31.07.2010 and for getting remarks the file was submitted to Legal Advisor. Finally, the Legal Advisor has opined that as per B.P.Ms.[FB] No.5 [Admn.Br.] dated 01.02.1985 read with B.P.Ms.[FB] No.3 [Admn.Br.] dated 18.01.1986, the senior of the Assistant Engineers [Electrical / Mechanical / Civil] recruited through internal selection and direct recruitment were made is a particular year should be in the cyclic order in the ratio of 1:1, namely, first person from internal selection and the second person from direct recruitment. Thiru B.Sureshkumar was one among the internally selected person as Assistant Engineer/Mechanical during 1985 and his seniority was fixed in the ratio 1:1. Even though the said cyclic order was order in B.P.Ms.[FB] No.3 [Admn.Br.] dated 18.01.1986, it was only in a clarificatory nature as such the effect of the same would reckon from the date of issue of B.P.Ms.[FB] No.5 [Admn.Br.] dated 01.02.1985, whereas it has been amended to service Regulation vide B.P.Ms.[FB] No.66 [Sectt.Br.] dated 03.08.1987. Even though the said cyclic order was order in B.P.Ms.[FB] No.3 [Admn.Br.] dated 18.01.1986, it was only in a clarificatory nature as such the effect of the same would reckon from the date of issue of B.P.Ms.[FB] No.5 [Admn.Br.] dated 01.02.1985, whereas it has been amended to service Regulation vide B.P.Ms.[FB] No.66 [Sectt.Br.] dated 03.08.1987. The then CMD/TANGEDCO has once again discussed with and approved that the said seniority was fixed in accordance with the above B.Ps. Therefore, Thiru.B.Sureshkumar, is not entitled to any revision of seniority in the post of Assistant Engineer/Mechanical as per rules in force.'''' (15) The only aspect which had been stated in the counter affidavit is that the earlier representation had been rejected and thereafter, it had been again stated that the then CMD/TANGEDCO had again discussed and had approved that the said seniority had been fixed in accordance with the Board Proceedings. Therefore, when the petitioner relies on an office note which puts up for recommendation various aspects which had been considered on merits and it had been stated that the seniority had actually been fixed in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines, it is not open to the petitioner to seek review of that particular order on the basis of the internal notes circulated among the officials of the respondents. That would not be binding. They are not rule making authorities. It has no statutory value. It does not lay down any obligation on the respondents to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in his representation to his advantage. They have to take a decision. They had taken a decision that the representation made, would not be feasible of being addressed. I am afraid that I cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. (16) The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.